Emma wrote on May 30
th, 2015 at 1:15am:
ahh .. not very helpful , as an answer it = 0.
So to continue..
we do not normally dwell in nature, do we.?
Most of us live in these giant putrid hives we call cities.
We are locked in to rather rigid mindsets and lifestyles, and many, it seems , find it hard, or seemingly impossible, to feel real empathy for any human not within their purview, their clan, their religion , even the colour of their skin or gender. .
(see? I can write long sentences too.!
)
Seriously though , your argument is basically spurious because. .......
Most of us do not ever get to be natural individuals, do we?.
I am sorry. It was an answer and an answer that was direct to the actual question asked.
After all, it was just the "FIRST" sentence you took exception to, however, that first sentence, in
context was also, already explained, at least I thought so.
Men and Women have some "naturally" occurring differences generally.
I also did go on to point out that in our
modern world we (that's both men and women) have developed, lived by and built upon "social constructs" which have exacerbated inequity. I think the social constructs might have originally been a ham-fisted and misguided attempt to mirror what we thought our roles were in "nature" - we got it wrong.
That is the point to mentioning "in nature".
By the way, for my part, I do not think it at all helpful to attempt this debate without;
a) Acknowledging the rock banging nature dwelling beasties that we sprung up from - there are most likely still some significant genetic drivers we are not paying attention to.
b) That men and women are not the same and (MOST IMPORTANTLY) in a sensible and well functioning society this does NOT mean one is superior to the other.... We (Men and Women) have simply worked together to make it that way presently.
Yep, many people do live in Cities and large communal groups. Ironically, there were survival issues that drove this idea originally, back when we lived "in nature"....
I think we got lazy, now we are reaping the fruits of that error.
So, I don't agree that my argument is spurious because that one sentence was part of something bigger (Context) and, as such, that ONE sentence is not, in point of fact, my whole argument.
I am sorry if I have not been clear about this, but it seems to me that this is all just steps on a road (the irony of that analogy is not lost on me, after all, apparently us blokes aren't good at asking for directions
).